Erik Nordmark wrote: > > > And finally, a silly question: if they do not have any difference, > > why can't RH/HAO as well be considered the generic approach usable also > > elsewhere? > > Deserves a silly answer. > Yes, we should get IPsec to stop using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling > and instead use RH/HAO, and we'll move RFC 2473 to historic :-) > > One of the disadvantages of working on a draft for 5-6 years is that > the world might have changed around you. > Assuming that the new world will take one step back, one to the side, > and one step forward to use the new approach about to become a proposed > standard when there already is a well-understood and deployed mechanism > seems a bit odd to me.
Well I have had an awful time trying to reply to this due to weirdness with my wireless connection and sendmail, but let me paraphrase myself and try sending again; maybe the 10th time is a charm... I am not sure how silly your answer is supposed to be, but I am stuck on thinking about how we should interact with a changed world in this case. There is some conversation about replacing HAO with a nascent proposal which is based upon using tunelling, which you said is about to become a proposed standard. This means that the solution might "make sense" in this changed world -- but one could come up with another alternative based on other standards, it is just a matter of the lingua franca used to describe mechanisms to achieve the same goal. The questions, as I understand them, are really (a) is HAO broken enough that we need to remove and/or replace it? and if so, (b) is the tuneling proposal a suitable replacement? There seems to be some disagreement about (a), but even assuming (a) for the sake of argument.. people have so far refuted the relative advantages of (b), other than the one in your answer: because it is based on a proposed standard. It seems the security and anonymity advantages are in question. At least insofar as the proposal might relate to work in the Mobile IP group. There are many examples of protocols that exist in today's changed world, and still do just fine. The discussions about Mobile IPv6 have certainly included considerations about what has changed in the last 5 years. But they are based on technical merits as well -- in my own opinion, there doesn't seem to be anything that's come along that has a clear superiority *and* serves the same purpose of the HAO, so it is just as legitimate now as it was 5 years ago (hence you know where I stand on (a)). Well maybe you can tell me now how serious your answer was. And if I am still trying to figure it out, perhaps the joke is on me... -TJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
